6 or 7 years ago - the answer was: Get the job - because in 1999, salaries were great, and if you could turn on a computer, you were hired, most places.
Now, the climate is different. I put off finishing my degree, and frankly, no matter how good (effective) you are, there are some career paths, and opportunities, that are just blocked, period. Call it "ignorant HR policies" or prejudice all you want, but without a degree, you will not command the salary you deserve, nor will people take risks on you, and you'll end up with less interesting work.
Get the degree first. Whatever it takes. Then get a job. And if you want certs, most places will finance it for you. Then you'll have the best of both worlds.
The arguments people are making about making contacts are fine and dandy - but you'll make those in the professional world too. And, while everyone makes some contacts in school, not everyone makes contacts that will lead to anything. The contacts I made in college probably enable me to score a nickel-bag, but that's about it.
For all of MAD's suckyness (Microsoft Active Directory - I still use this acronym; it was coined by Novell in about 1997, as kind of a joke against Microsoft) - MAD delivers functionality that OS X can't even dream of.
Yes, it's sometimes very slow, sometimes a pain in the ass to troubleshoot, and yes - you'll frequently run into issues that make the Microsoft Support Rep blow his brains out. But the bottom line is: when it works, it delivers functionality that simply can not be done on a Mac.
Example: You can send your admin-monkey to the server, with a few manual procedure steps, to navigate through the (admittedly TERRIBLE) GUI, and check a checkbox that will disable the ability of all Users (not Administrators, and maybe even excluding the folks you put in the "IT Support" group) from using a DOS command shell.
This configuration change will go out on the network with the next reboot. And poof! 500 nosy, troublesome Users are now a bit less able to shoot themselves in the foot, or work mischief on your systems. That's just one example, but there are literally THOUSANDS of these kinds of settings, minor tweaks, etc.
Other examples: disable the IE address bar. (and prevent Trojans from hooking it). Disable the Tools menu so users can't mung with the security settings in IE. Disable control panels. Enforce a password-protected screen saver across the enterprise. Take the File-Open menu away from MS Excel. Whatever. I assure you, as draconian and capricious as these sound - some of them are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to operate computers in a secure environment.
And ONLY MAD does this. (to be fair, you had this limited functionality in NT 4.0 too). There are probably ways to hack these kinds of configurations together in Mac OS X. But the effort required to "roll your own" system to manage client configuration on this scale, with this ease of use, would be on a pretty much unimaginable level.
I am an unashamed Mac fanboy. The bane of my life is when I have to go into work, and fix broken Domain Policies or MAD server. I have 4 Macs at home, and I try to manage them somewhat like an enterprise - and I'm telling you - the tools just are not there. There *is* a usable infrastructure, but you'd need to pump tens of thousands of man-hours from a very skilled scripting guru to pull off the equivalent thing on a Mac. I long for the day that Steve Jobs gets up on that stage and announces that Apple is actually serious about getting into the Enterprise, and will develop tools for a REAL OS X Server. (instead of just offering the Workstation OS, plus a couple of tools, and a hefty price-tag, and calling it "Server") - I am pining for the day that I can hear my customer say: "tear out all this Windows crap and give me a Mac network".
What's most impressive is the ability for the F-22 to multiply the effectiveness of the existing airforce. In the same engagement that F-22 enabled a supporting flight of older aircraft to achieve a kill/loss ratio of 83-1.
That's why the much-maligned F-35 is called the "Joint Strike Fighter" - what may appear to be a weak plane, on its own, was actually designed to fulfill a wide range of roles - and be used in combination with other support. The technology of the F-35 was expensive, but it was a lot cheaper that it otherwise would have been had they designed 3 separate planes, that each was to be the end-all. That's why JSF is not an "Air Superiority" fighter. The F-22 is.
However - when I hear all this F-22 boosterism, I'm reminded of the arrogance and hubris that surrounded the F-4. The F-4 was designed as a long-range missile platform, because dogfights were supposedly a "thing of the past" - and the F-4 had no gun. When it was first deployed in Vietnam, it got massively spanked by larger numbers of inferior planes. (same way the US spanked the much-feared German Tiger tanks with larger numbers of smaller, less capable tanks, in WW II).
The DESIGN of the F-4 was the strategy. This strategy was hard-coded in the platform. And when the US had to adjust their air combat strategy because it didn't work as planned, they had to come up with some really awful hacks to compensate. (Like an external gun-pod, which also proved pretty worthless in dogfights). In the end, the F-4 turned out to be a pretty worthless plane in that environment. The problem was, is that this plane was SOLD to commanders as a solution to a problem, using a strategy that did not work in real life.
I'm worried that the F-22 may be the same thing. The strategy is Stealth. And yes - we've proven that this strategy works very well. In Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, and again in Iraq. The F-22 is yet another plane, whose strategy is hard-coded into the platform, with very little ability to be flexible and adaptable. It's a very risky investment. If some Iranian electrical genius figures out how to cheaply modify an off-the-shelf Russian radar system to see F-22's somehow - and say it's a $50,000 modification, then that would make the F-22 pretty much obsolete. Is such an occurrence likely? No. But the consequences of this unlikely occurrence are pretty dire. Personally, I don't think it's worth the risk. A potential computing or electronics hack against a costly integrated system like the F-22?
The real question is: HOw many suicide bombers can you buy for $100 Million?
How many IED's can you buy for $100 Million?
And given the political asymmetry (love it or hate it) of such an engagement, who would spank whom?
You need to then consider the industrial infrastructure backing up that $100 Million, and how its flowing, whether it's from taxation, or voluntary donation by religious fundamentalists.
The F-22 AND the Eurofighter were designed to fight a war that will most likely never happen.
Our side has no effective weapon against today's WW III. Because an IED is more of a political and economic weapon, despite it's primary effect of killing/wounding whomever was unfortunate enough to stray close to it.
What is our weapon against a political climate that accepts insurgent tactics as justified, and nearly any effective military countermeasure as a war crime?
I agree that private funding is the future of space.
I disagree. There does not exist, an enterpreneur, or board of directors, or venture capitalist, who would take this kind of risk - this much money, for; well, the potential returns are really really huge. But the risk is very very high. For guys like you and me, with all the vision, and no money, well, of course it's a no-brainer. But for guys like, hell, even Bill Gates, I don't think they see this as a good investment. Today's crop of investors are extremely conservative and risk-averse. No way in hell will you see enough money being invested to make this happen. The money and time required to get a profit out of space is probably something along the lines of two to three orders of magnitude more than what we've already spent.
Columbus discovered the Americas - but he was not financed by private capital. And did the investor realize all of the profit from this investment (Queen Isabella's jewels?). No. She had to split the gains with the Portuguese, the Germans, the French, the British, etc. And the huge profit from this venture took CENTURIES to be realized.
Private funding for space travel? Don't be absurd. Maybe 500 years from now.
Actually, there IS a DRM scheme that should theoretically work.
It would involve encrypting the product, each copy with its own unique key, and giving each licensed user a unique key. Wrap the purchase in a legally binding license. Such that any crack that makes it into the wild, will be tracable back to a purchaser who would be responsible for protecting the integrity of that copy of the product. The user would be held legally responsible, and thus would have a huge incentive to protect the product's encryption.
However, such DRM would be severly at odds with any mass-production or marketing technique, and therefore, would cost far more to implement than it would be worth. Maybe someday, information technology will mitigate such costs. But that's a long ways down the road. And the market for such a scheme would be questionable at best. Would you pay for a legitimate product, knowing that if someone cracked your key and distributed that product illegally, you would be held responsible for damages?
I sort of agree with you, but the argument FOR patents is also a strong one.
Actually, we'd probably be better off with a compromise: like the original one in Article 1 in the constitution regarding patent. Like; limit them to 7 years? Or even less? Both sides win. Really, the main reason patents and copyright are killing innovation right now, is that they've been extended and extended by corporate lobbyists beyond their general usefulness.
Personally - I think the best approach to fixing this problem is to fight hard for public campaign finance, then this problem will very quickly sort itself out, along with many, many others. But the forces lined up against such a change will make sure this never happens.
Most people who use OS X for any time at all love it. Why not give everybody a chance to love it?
They don't give a crap if anybody USES OS X. They want to sell hardware.
That's why they let people run Windows, or Linux, or Solaris x86, on their hardware, if that's what they want to do. I agree that Apple has "hardware profits" blinders on. But what can you do?
(My guess is that soon, someone, somewhere, out there, will try this, and have it working anyway, with or without Apple's sanctions)
The problem is human motivation, and our limited lifespans.
Some people would rather make a buck today, dreaming up a "solar umbrella" scam (or breeding african and american bees, or dumping black sea ballast water in hudson bay, etc.), knowing that, it will probably not work, and end up screwing future generations worse.
If people lived forever (or at least longer than the average of the 60-some odd years of today), they'd have a direct interest in sustaining our ecosphere. They might even stop breeding like rabbits too.
The free market will find an alternative. Gas will not go to an unsustainable price overnight. As it goes higher alternatives become cheaper in comparison. This relates to real estate as well, cities will probably come back in favor if no gas alternative appears that is as cheap as gas. But even in that case, people will probably just more to electric cars.
It is true, that the Free Market is an inexorable natural force.
Just as high floodwaters are an inexorable natural force.
And high floodwaters will eventually find alternatives to being held back by levies and pumps. Unfortunately, the alternative is lots of people drown.
Sure, when oil gets to $100-200/bbl, alternatives will be economically more attractive. But the high efficiency our economy currently enjoys will be lost, and there will be no way to kick-start it.
Nobody's suggesting repealing the laws of thermodynamics, or those of economics. Proponents of alternative energies are merely suggesting that we invest our current prosperity into future sustainability, instead of partying now, and ignoring the massive hangover to come. At least with the partying - the people who drink the heaviest are the ones who suffer the most afterwards. But with the economic partying, the worst abusers and consumers will be the ones who can afford to buy electric cars ten years down the line. They should also invest in some firearms, because the rest of the people won't be able to afford electric cars when their jobs go away, and when they're no longer able to afford food or housing. The ones who will survive best, are the ones who currently don't rely on working for income.
Another thing is that there are large portions of the US now that are sustaining huge populations - huge populations that would not be sustainable without two things: Automobiles and Central Air Conditioning. Both of which require relatively huge amounts of energy.
Places like. . . Montana, where, as you say, it's cold, and there is very very poor public transportation. Or Arizona. Or much of the Southwest.
How are people going to live in these regions when the oil runs out? (ie. reaches $100-200/bbl.) When simply commuting to a daily job will be an impossible expense. When keeping a house warm through a -40 F winter would cost more than an average person earns in a year. When air conditioning a house in Tucson when it's 110 degrees out during the day, and 95 degrees at night, for a few months out of the year.
I would expect a massive realignment of real-estate values, at a bare minimum. If we (America) don't start looking for viable alternatives to Petroleum.
These laws are made by extreme religious fundamentalists who think that any sex outside of marriage is wrong.
. . . and that sex with minors, (even close blood relatives, cousins) INSIDE of a marriage is a-o-k. (specifically referring to the fact that many states, particularly SOUTHERN states, allow girls to get married as young as 13)
I'd say, right now, the biggest problem for the Conservative movement, worldwide, is that there are a lot of opportunists, con men, and criminals, who are calling themseleves "Conservative" - when really, they're just trying to get elected (on a platform of fiscal responsibility, and moral correctness) so they can position themselves to loot the public trust.
I thing that Liberals (at least in the US) have had the same problem, which is one major reason why "Liberal" has become such a dirty word. Expect the same to happen to "Conservative" (polls among college students are already showing this).
The only way this can happen, by the way, is if voters become misled and ill informed by dishonest campaign advertising, think tanks, and media campaigns. I wish it weren't so, but it is so.
Find a way to squeeze $1,000 out of every man, woman, and child in the U.S., and you're probably in the ballpark.
EASY!
1. Cook up a story about weapons of mass destruction. 2. Say we need a War on Limited Bandwidth. 3. Fund the war via massive borrowing from China. . . . well, in the case of Iraq (only, not the broader WoT) that's amounted to about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the US so far (2006 figures). 4. Profit (from bandwidth glut). . . . (as opposed to O.I.L. where nobody outside of the Heritage Foundation cronies in the CPA is profitting).
some, like sony, are both hardware and content creators. internal battles on the issue within sony might be revelatory for what our future holds
Betamax Minidisc PSPvd Blu-Ray
That's Sony's track record. The content cartel suck-up has led them to, over and over, invest in technology that CONSISTENTLY LOSES in the marketplace - even though other aspects of their devices are clearly superior, technically, to competitors. (for example: Sony makes some of the most kick-ass consumer-level digital cameras)
You may not have stolen the music (that's up to you to decide) but they have less money than if you bought that copy outright.
Yes, but they have the SAME amount of money they would otherwise had, had I decided not to buy that copy at all. Especially if it's priced out of my range. (no, a $20 CD is not out of my price range - but it is certainly out of the price range of many people, and is completely unrealistic given the conditions of the marketplace today).
In fact, some may argue, and there's compelling facts to support this, that with an "illegal" copy out there, that property is worth MORE. Because of the network effect of grassroots advertising. If this were not true, there would be no such thing as "promotional copies", or the concept known as "payola" (where producers PAY radio stations to play music).
Though I agree with you; the proper response to a product we don't like, is to boycott it. However, the right vs wrong argument is very nuanced, and not as black-and-white as you're trying to make it out. I don't blame anyone for being confused about which side of this to stand on. Except for the copyright tyrants. They may have the authority of law enforcing their position, but they're clearly wrong to try to enforce an extrajudicial copyright regime based on their wish-list, enshrined in the source code of the DRM they're forcing onto the market via the monopoly power offered by their RIAA cartel. Especially in light of the re-writing of the social contract that's occurred since the original copyright terms were written into our Constitution.
I think that a good analogy here is if Computers were like Cars. That hasn't always been a great analogy, but in this case, I think it works.
For example; say GM was introducing a new car, that was linked to a radio network of speed-limit signs, and always ensured you were in compliance of local speed regulations, by limiting the speed of your car.
Isn't that a great safety feature? No more speeding tickets?
That is; until the system screws up, and you end up stuck at 25 mph on the freeway. Or, if it fails to detect a school zone, and you're going 35 if a 25. Or worse, if you're used to just flooring it all the time, relying on the system to protect you, and you end up going 50 in a 25, and run over a schoolkid.
Now, say Ford, not to be one-upped by GM, introduces a feature that ties into school districts and local businesses, to ensure you're in compliance in school zones, AND, don't run over people walking in crosswalks heading to shopping malls. But the local businesses have the right to also make you drive slowly past their advertising billboards. And local police have the right to download your entire speed logs now, which includes all the speed zones you've driven through. You know. Just in case you're a terrorist.
Now how great a feature is that?
Now GM's not getting the partnership deals with the Police, School Districts, and local businesses. So they're compelled to jump into Ford's game.
Then, GM and Ford (with the support from all their "Speed Rights Management" Partners) lobby to get a law passed that says that only cars supporting these features are allowed to be registered with the DMV to drive on public roads. Think of how many children will be saved!
Did you have a right to operate a vehicle on public roads? Sorry, that's actually a PRIVILEGE, not a right. (how long before operating a computer on the Public Internet becomes a privilege, not a right?)
Did you have a right to privacy? Sorry, that's not really enumerated anywhere in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights only talks about your "papers" - and with enough lobbying dollars behind it, that can be construed to mean: the founding fathers didn't mean for this to include databases or logfiles.
Did you have a right to fair use? Sorry, that's not really enumerated anywhere except for some obscure 1996 law, that will be repealed or amended by lobbyists in some way.
Dr. Lawrence Lessig writes about this, and has done so since the 1980's. His argument is that - with written laws, we have a democratic and constitutional process to ensure that our rights are respected. With the de facto laws enforced by the behavior of commercial machines (like computer software, and electronics), there is no such democratic or constitutional process, other than our right to "vote with our dollars" - so if our system of laws and regulations has become a game of "vote with your dollars" - who do you think will win, every time?
I don't give a shit if I can't watch HD-DVDs. I won't. I'd rather have freedom than a hi-def version of Speed II: Bladder Control.
And that's really the crux of it all.
HD was a "ready" technology, 10 years ago. But it's been delayed by the content mafia. And now, it turns out, there's really no demand for this level of quality that's compelling enough to support a robust market.
It's the 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the corner, smearing shit all over the walls. And the HD promotion-machine keeps trying to cover it up. "look! shiny!"
Well, you know what's not shiny? Money leaving my pocket at a higher rate than I can earn it. Nobody outside of the top income quintile can afford to enjoy HD entertainment to the degree we now enjoy 640x480 (or 320p).
By and large, the Movie Industry already has done that.
Witness: the sharp decline in cinema audiences. Witness: the sharp increase in mail-order rentals. Witness: the sharp decline of retail prices for DVD movies.
None of these factors exist for Music; which, strangely enough, is much easier to pirate via P2P downloads. It's really quite curious (to me) how the Movie and Music markets are handling these new channels and conditions so differently.
Slashdot Mirror
6 or 7 years ago - the answer was:
Get the job - because in 1999, salaries were great, and if you could turn on a computer, you were hired, most places.
Now, the climate is different. I put off finishing my degree, and frankly, no matter how good (effective) you are, there are some career paths, and opportunities, that are just blocked, period. Call it "ignorant HR policies" or prejudice all you want, but without a degree, you will not command the salary you deserve, nor will people take risks on you, and you'll end up with less interesting work.
Get the degree first. Whatever it takes.
Then get a job.
And if you want certs, most places will finance it for you. Then you'll have the best of both worlds.
The arguments people are making about making contacts are fine and dandy - but you'll make those in the professional world too. And, while everyone makes some contacts in school, not everyone makes contacts that will lead to anything. The contacts I made in college probably enable me to score a nickel-bag, but that's about it.
All they need to do is add Ben Affleck, and hand it all over to Kevin Smith.
Here's a good working title:
"Jay & Silent Bob Trash the Star Fleet Academy"
Simple solution.
The game companies that figure this shit out will profit.
The ones that do not, (or do not copy these methods) will perish.
And until the first company figures it out - then the market will stagnate. Like automobiles. Like software. Like aerospace.
For all of MAD's suckyness (Microsoft Active Directory - I still use this acronym; it was coined by Novell in about 1997, as kind of a joke against Microsoft) - MAD delivers functionality that OS X can't even dream of.
Yes, it's sometimes very slow, sometimes a pain in the ass to troubleshoot, and yes - you'll frequently run into issues that make the Microsoft Support Rep blow his brains out. But the bottom line is: when it works, it delivers functionality that simply can not be done on a Mac.
Example:
You can send your admin-monkey to the server, with a few manual procedure steps, to navigate through the (admittedly TERRIBLE) GUI, and check a checkbox that will disable the ability of all Users (not Administrators, and maybe even excluding the folks you put in the "IT Support" group) from using a DOS command shell.
This configuration change will go out on the network with the next reboot. And poof! 500 nosy, troublesome Users are now a bit less able to shoot themselves in the foot, or work mischief on your systems. That's just one example, but there are literally THOUSANDS of these kinds of settings, minor tweaks, etc.
Other examples: disable the IE address bar. (and prevent Trojans from hooking it). Disable the Tools menu so users can't mung with the security settings in IE. Disable control panels. Enforce a password-protected screen saver across the enterprise. Take the File-Open menu away from MS Excel. Whatever. I assure you, as draconian and capricious as these sound - some of them are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to operate computers in a secure environment.
And ONLY MAD does this. (to be fair, you had this limited functionality in NT 4.0 too).
There are probably ways to hack these kinds of configurations together in Mac OS X. But the effort required to "roll your own" system to manage client configuration on this scale, with this ease of use, would be on a pretty much unimaginable level.
I am an unashamed Mac fanboy. The bane of my life is when I have to go into work, and fix broken Domain Policies or MAD server. I have 4 Macs at home, and I try to manage them somewhat like an enterprise - and I'm telling you - the tools just are not there. There *is* a usable infrastructure, but you'd need to pump tens of thousands of man-hours from a very skilled scripting guru to pull off the equivalent thing on a Mac. I long for the day that Steve Jobs gets up on that stage and announces that Apple is actually serious about getting into the Enterprise, and will develop tools for a REAL OS X Server. (instead of just offering the Workstation OS, plus a couple of tools, and a hefty price-tag, and calling it "Server") - I am pining for the day that I can hear my customer say: "tear out all this Windows crap and give me a Mac network".
What's most impressive is the ability for the F-22 to multiply the effectiveness of the existing airforce. In the same engagement that F-22 enabled a supporting flight of older aircraft to achieve a kill/loss ratio of 83-1.
That's why the much-maligned F-35 is called the "Joint Strike Fighter" - what may appear to be a weak plane, on its own, was actually designed to fulfill a wide range of roles - and be used in combination with other support. The technology of the F-35 was expensive, but it was a lot cheaper that it otherwise would have been had they designed 3 separate planes, that each was to be the end-all. That's why JSF is not an "Air Superiority" fighter. The F-22 is.
However - when I hear all this F-22 boosterism, I'm reminded of the arrogance and hubris that surrounded the F-4. The F-4 was designed as a long-range missile platform, because dogfights were supposedly a "thing of the past" - and the F-4 had no gun. When it was first deployed in Vietnam, it got massively spanked by larger numbers of inferior planes. (same way the US spanked the much-feared German Tiger tanks with larger numbers of smaller, less capable tanks, in WW II).
The DESIGN of the F-4 was the strategy. This strategy was hard-coded in the platform. And when the US had to adjust their air combat strategy because it didn't work as planned, they had to come up with some really awful hacks to compensate. (Like an external gun-pod, which also proved pretty worthless in dogfights). In the end, the F-4 turned out to be a pretty worthless plane in that environment. The problem was, is that this plane was SOLD to commanders as a solution to a problem, using a strategy that did not work in real life.
I'm worried that the F-22 may be the same thing. The strategy is Stealth. And yes - we've proven that this strategy works very well. In Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, and again in Iraq. The F-22 is yet another plane, whose strategy is hard-coded into the platform, with very little ability to be flexible and adaptable. It's a very risky investment. If some Iranian electrical genius figures out how to cheaply modify an off-the-shelf Russian radar system to see F-22's somehow - and say it's a $50,000 modification, then that would make the F-22 pretty much obsolete. Is such an occurrence likely? No. But the consequences of this unlikely occurrence are pretty dire. Personally, I don't think it's worth the risk. A potential computing or electronics hack against a costly integrated system like the F-22?
The real question is:
HOw many suicide bombers can you buy for $100 Million?
How many IED's can you buy for $100 Million?
And given the political asymmetry (love it or hate it) of such an engagement, who would spank whom?
You need to then consider the industrial infrastructure backing up that $100 Million, and how its flowing, whether it's from taxation, or voluntary donation by religious fundamentalists.
The F-22 AND the Eurofighter were designed to fight a war that will most likely never happen.
Our side has no effective weapon against today's WW III. Because an IED is more of a political and economic weapon, despite it's primary effect of killing/wounding whomever was unfortunate enough to stray close to it.
What is our weapon against a political climate that accepts insurgent tactics as justified, and nearly any effective military countermeasure as a war crime?
I agree that private funding is the future of space.
I disagree. There does not exist, an enterpreneur, or board of directors, or venture capitalist, who would take this kind of risk - this much money, for; well, the potential returns are really really huge. But the risk is very very high. For guys like you and me, with all the vision, and no money, well, of course it's a no-brainer. But for guys like, hell, even Bill Gates, I don't think they see this as a good investment. Today's crop of investors are extremely conservative and risk-averse. No way in hell will you see enough money being invested to make this happen. The money and time required to get a profit out of space is probably something along the lines of two to three orders of magnitude more than what we've already spent.
Columbus discovered the Americas - but he was not financed by private capital. And did the investor realize all of the profit from this investment (Queen Isabella's jewels?). No. She had to split the gains with the Portuguese, the Germans, the French, the British, etc. And the huge profit from this venture took CENTURIES to be realized.
Private funding for space travel? Don't be absurd. Maybe 500 years from now.
I just wonder why the RIAA hasn't sued these DRM shysters yet.
Actually, there IS a DRM scheme that should theoretically work.
It would involve encrypting the product, each copy with its own unique key, and giving each licensed user a unique key. Wrap the purchase in a legally binding license. Such that any crack that makes it into the wild, will be tracable back to a purchaser who would be responsible for protecting the integrity of that copy of the product. The user would be held legally responsible, and thus would have a huge incentive to protect the product's encryption.
However, such DRM would be severly at odds with any mass-production or marketing technique, and therefore, would cost far more to implement than it would be worth. Maybe someday, information technology will mitigate such costs. But that's a long ways down the road. And the market for such a scheme would be questionable at best. Would you pay for a legitimate product, knowing that if someone cracked your key and distributed that product illegally, you would be held responsible for damages?
I know I would not.
I sort of agree with you, but the argument FOR patents is also a strong one.
Actually, we'd probably be better off with a compromise: like the original one in Article 1 in the constitution regarding patent. Like; limit them to 7 years? Or even less? Both sides win. Really, the main reason patents and copyright are killing innovation right now, is that they've been extended and extended by corporate lobbyists beyond their general usefulness.
Personally - I think the best approach to fixing this problem is to fight hard for public campaign finance, then this problem will very quickly sort itself out, along with many, many others. But the forces lined up against such a change will make sure this never happens.
Most people who use OS X for any time at all love it. Why not give everybody a chance to love it?
They don't give a crap if anybody USES OS X.
They want to sell hardware.
That's why they let people run Windows, or Linux, or Solaris x86, on their hardware, if that's what they want to do. I agree that Apple has "hardware profits" blinders on. But what can you do?
(My guess is that soon, someone, somewhere, out there, will try this, and have it working anyway, with or without Apple's sanctions)
The Network is Everyone's Computer.
The problem is human motivation, and our limited lifespans.
Some people would rather make a buck today, dreaming up a "solar umbrella" scam (or breeding african and american bees, or dumping black sea ballast water in hudson bay, etc.), knowing that, it will probably not work, and end up screwing future generations worse.
If people lived forever (or at least longer than the average of the 60-some odd years of today), they'd have a direct interest in sustaining our ecosphere. They might even stop breeding like rabbits too.
The free market will find an alternative. Gas will not go to an unsustainable price overnight. As it goes higher alternatives become cheaper in comparison. This relates to real estate as well, cities will probably come back in favor if no gas alternative appears that is as cheap as gas. But even in that case, people will probably just more to electric cars.
It is true, that the Free Market is an inexorable natural force.
Just as high floodwaters are an inexorable natural force.
And high floodwaters will eventually find alternatives to being held back by levies and pumps. Unfortunately, the alternative is lots of people drown.
Sure, when oil gets to $100-200/bbl, alternatives will be economically more attractive. But the high efficiency our economy currently enjoys will be lost, and there will be no way to kick-start it.
Nobody's suggesting repealing the laws of thermodynamics, or those of economics. Proponents of alternative energies are merely suggesting that we invest our current prosperity into future sustainability, instead of partying now, and ignoring the massive hangover to come. At least with the partying - the people who drink the heaviest are the ones who suffer the most afterwards. But with the economic partying, the worst abusers and consumers will be the ones who can afford to buy electric cars ten years down the line. They should also invest in some firearms, because the rest of the people won't be able to afford electric cars when their jobs go away, and when they're no longer able to afford food or housing. The ones who will survive best, are the ones who currently don't rely on working for income.
Another thing is that there are large portions of the US now that are sustaining huge populations - huge populations that would not be sustainable without two things: Automobiles and Central Air Conditioning. Both of which require relatively huge amounts of energy.
Places like. . . Montana, where, as you say, it's cold, and there is very very poor public transportation. Or Arizona. Or much of the Southwest.
How are people going to live in these regions when the oil runs out? (ie. reaches $100-200/bbl.) When simply commuting to a daily job will be an impossible expense. When keeping a house warm through a -40 F winter would cost more than an average person earns in a year. When air conditioning a house in Tucson when it's 110 degrees out during the day, and 95 degrees at night, for a few months out of the year.
I would expect a massive realignment of real-estate values, at a bare minimum. If we (America) don't start looking for viable alternatives to Petroleum.
This was not legally consensual.
The law states that minors can not consent.
(Whether you agree with that or not, this is the law.)
(even though in most states, minors CAN marry - in some states, as young as 13).
These laws are made by extreme religious fundamentalists who think that any sex outside of marriage is wrong.
. . . and that sex with minors, (even close blood relatives, cousins) INSIDE of a marriage is a-o-k.
(specifically referring to the fact that many states, particularly SOUTHERN states, allow girls to get married as young as 13)
....your horse had to be sent to the glue factory....
With a monthlong stop, along the way, at a bestiality-porn movie studio.
I'd say, right now, the biggest problem for the Conservative movement, worldwide, is that there are a lot of opportunists, con men, and criminals, who are calling themseleves "Conservative" - when really, they're just trying to get elected (on a platform of fiscal responsibility, and moral correctness) so they can position themselves to loot the public trust.
I thing that Liberals (at least in the US) have had the same problem, which is one major reason why "Liberal" has become such a dirty word. Expect the same to happen to "Conservative" (polls among college students are already showing this).
The only way this can happen, by the way, is if voters become misled and ill informed by dishonest campaign advertising, think tanks, and media campaigns. I wish it weren't so, but it is so.
Find a way to squeeze $1,000 out of every man, woman, and child in the U.S., and you're probably in the ballpark.
EASY!
1. Cook up a story about weapons of mass destruction.
2. Say we need a War on Limited Bandwidth.
3. Fund the war via massive borrowing from China.
. . . well, in the case of Iraq (only, not the broader WoT) that's amounted to about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the US so far (2006 figures).
4. Profit (from bandwidth glut).
. . . (as opposed to O.I.L. where nobody outside of the Heritage Foundation cronies in the CPA is profitting).
some, like sony, are both hardware and content creators. internal battles on the issue within sony might be revelatory for what our future holds
Betamax
Minidisc
PSPvd
Blu-Ray
That's Sony's track record. The content cartel suck-up has led them to, over and over, invest in technology that CONSISTENTLY LOSES in the marketplace - even though other aspects of their devices are clearly superior, technically, to competitors. (for example: Sony makes some of the most kick-ass consumer-level digital cameras)
You may not have stolen the music (that's up to you to decide) but they have less money than if you bought that copy outright.
Yes, but they have the SAME amount of money they would otherwise had, had I decided not to buy that copy at all. Especially if it's priced out of my range. (no, a $20 CD is not out of my price range - but it is certainly out of the price range of many people, and is completely unrealistic given the conditions of the marketplace today).
In fact, some may argue, and there's compelling facts to support this, that with an "illegal" copy out there, that property is worth MORE. Because of the network effect of grassroots advertising. If this were not true, there would be no such thing as "promotional copies", or the concept known as "payola" (where producers PAY radio stations to play music).
Though I agree with you; the proper response to a product we don't like, is to boycott it. However, the right vs wrong argument is very nuanced, and not as black-and-white as you're trying to make it out. I don't blame anyone for being confused about which side of this to stand on. Except for the copyright tyrants. They may have the authority of law enforcing their position, but they're clearly wrong to try to enforce an extrajudicial copyright regime based on their wish-list, enshrined in the source code of the DRM they're forcing onto the market via the monopoly power offered by their RIAA cartel. Especially in light of the re-writing of the social contract that's occurred since the original copyright terms were written into our Constitution.
I think that a good analogy here is if Computers were like Cars.
That hasn't always been a great analogy, but in this case, I think it works.
For example; say GM was introducing a new car, that was linked to a radio network of speed-limit signs, and always ensured you were in compliance of local speed regulations, by limiting the speed of your car.
Isn't that a great safety feature? No more speeding tickets?
That is; until the system screws up, and you end up stuck at 25 mph on the freeway.
Or, if it fails to detect a school zone, and you're going 35 if a 25.
Or worse, if you're used to just flooring it all the time, relying on the system to protect you, and you end up going 50 in a 25, and run over a schoolkid.
Now, say Ford, not to be one-upped by GM, introduces a feature that ties into school districts and local businesses, to ensure you're in compliance in school zones, AND, don't run over people walking in crosswalks heading to shopping malls. But the local businesses have the right to also make you drive slowly past their advertising billboards. And local police have the right to download your entire speed logs now, which includes all the speed zones you've driven through. You know. Just in case you're a terrorist.
Now how great a feature is that?
Now GM's not getting the partnership deals with the Police, School Districts, and local businesses. So they're compelled to jump into Ford's game.
Then, GM and Ford (with the support from all their "Speed Rights Management" Partners) lobby to get a law passed that says that only cars supporting these features are allowed to be registered with the DMV to drive on public roads. Think of how many children will be saved!
Did you have a right to operate a vehicle on public roads?
Sorry, that's actually a PRIVILEGE, not a right.
(how long before operating a computer on the Public Internet becomes a privilege, not a right?)
Did you have a right to privacy?
Sorry, that's not really enumerated anywhere in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights only talks about your "papers" - and with enough lobbying dollars behind it, that can be construed to mean: the founding fathers didn't mean for this to include databases or logfiles.
Did you have a right to fair use?
Sorry, that's not really enumerated anywhere except for some obscure 1996 law, that will be repealed or amended by lobbyists in some way.
Dr. Lawrence Lessig writes about this, and has done so since the 1980's. His argument is that - with written laws, we have a democratic and constitutional process to ensure that our rights are respected. With the de facto laws enforced by the behavior of commercial machines (like computer software, and electronics), there is no such democratic or constitutional process, other than our right to "vote with our dollars" - so if our system of laws and regulations has become a game of "vote with your dollars" - who do you think will win, every time?
I don't give a shit if I can't watch HD-DVDs. I won't. I'd rather have freedom than a hi-def version of Speed II: Bladder Control.
And that's really the crux of it all.
HD was a "ready" technology, 10 years ago.
But it's been delayed by the content mafia.
And now, it turns out, there's really no demand for this level of quality that's compelling enough to support a robust market.
It's the 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the corner, smearing shit all over the walls.
And the HD promotion-machine keeps trying to cover it up. "look! shiny!"
Well, you know what's not shiny? Money leaving my pocket at a higher rate than I can earn it. Nobody outside of the top income quintile can afford to enjoy HD entertainment to the degree we now enjoy 640x480 (or 320p).
By and large, the Movie Industry already has done that.
Witness: the sharp decline in cinema audiences.
Witness: the sharp increase in mail-order rentals.
Witness: the sharp decline of retail prices for DVD movies.
None of these factors exist for Music; which, strangely enough, is much easier to pirate via P2P downloads. It's really quite curious (to me) how the Movie and Music markets are handling these new channels and conditions so differently.